pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 17 May 2022 \ parent \ on: The Bolt Card, an LNURL-powered NFC card bitcoin
Oh let me guess... you are one of those going top pay for a coffee with a Trezor, connected to a laptop over Tor, using a LiveCD linux...
And people waiting in line behind you, until you remember your 2FA.
People that lost money in Mt.Gox where the losers, the traders, not real Bitcoiners.
I am in Bitcoinlandia from 2012 and didn't lost any sat on MtGox, because I didn't have any BTC there, only on my wallets.
For all these 10+ years I use the method of 3 levels satshing: HODL, cache, spending. Each level with a certain amount.
For spending is just fine to have some easy fast tools even custodials, without touching all my satsh.
I understand using a custodian if you absolutely have to.
The issue I see is that there does not seem to be any security level benefit. Sure your phone can be hacked, but so can the website you're custodying with, but worse and more concerning to me, is the influence that is given to any custodian.
I mentioned the banking lobby
I have yet to mention FTX, although they have walked their statements back, the point is that depositors give custodians undue power of influence in a world where politicians are bought and paid for. Maybe maybe if it is combined with a culture like "proof of keys day" then maybe it could be safe enough as to avoid a server side number that does not accurately reflect the backend's cold storage and therefore make a banking lobby 2.0 infeasable.
Sure, your $200 of spending money with a custodian might not be a big deal to you, but thousands of depositors with that same amount, or worse millions, has compounding effects that I don't believe are often considered when people choose to use a custodial solution, a point that is nonetheless moot if you absolutely have to use a custodian.
reply
you don't have to use a custodian
reply